‘In recent months, there have been a number of prosecutions under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (CEMA); an Act drafted in the latter part of the last century and covering the physical importation of “prohibited items” into the UK and the evasion of duties more generally. At the time, the Act caught those seeking to import pornographic videos and magazines.’

‘Theresa May’s Brexit strategy has been thrown into new doubt as a former head of the government’s legal services ridicules the prime minister’s claim that the UK can break free of all European laws while continuing to reap the economic benefits of the EU’s single market.’

‘Theresa May is to trigger Article 50 on 29 March 2017, kicking off the two-year negotiation period during which the relationship between the UK and the EU will be redefined. On 12 March the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee published their ninth report of the current session: ‘Article 50 negotiations: Implications of ‘no deal’’. This is the first Select Committee publication focusing specifically on the implications faced by the UK in the event of a ‘no deal’ situation, with reference to a range of different sectors, policy areas and circumstances. Last week the concerns raised in the report as to the Government’s position or rather the apparent lack thereof regarding ‘no deal’ implications seemed to be confirmed when the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union made headlines telling the Brexit Select Committee that the Government had done no economic assessment of the possible effects of a “no deal” scenario. On 24 January 2017, similar remarks were made when Davis said that there were so many different things to assess, considering implications of ‘no deal’ would be ‘nothing more than an exercise in guesswork at this stage’. In this post I will highlight the most interesting points raised in the report which go to show that, contrary to what the Government suggests, it is actually both possible and vital to assess what areas require particular attention and what challenges this would bring. Beyond the question of ‘no deal’ implications, there are various aspects that the report touches upon which would benefit from academic discussion.’

‘Commercial property landlords could be forced to actively inspect their properties and police tenants suspected of tobacco and other excise duty evasion under plans proposed by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), an expert has warned.’

‘The claimants who were renewable source electricity generators brought proceedings for judicial review challenging the decision of the Government, announced in the Budget statement on 8 July 2015 and to take effect on 1 August 2015, to remove the exemption for renewable source electricity (“RSE”) from the Climate Change Levy (“CCL”), an environmental tax levied on electricity, gas, solid fuels and liquefied petroleum gas supplied to business and the public sector. Use by domestic consumers was excluded from the CCL. Article 15 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC permitted member states to apply exemptions or reductions in tax to electricity of renewable origin, and article 3 of the Parliament and Council Directive 2009/28/EC obliged them to ensure by 2020 at least 15% of all energy came from renewable sources. The removal of the exemption was provided in section 49 of the Finance (No 2) Act 2015, amending paragraph 19 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000. The judge dismissed the claimants’ claim for judicial review, holding that (1) the exemption fell within the scope of European Union law; (2) the claimants had failed to establish an express or inferred assurance that the Government had promoted a legitimate expectation not to withdraw the RSE exemption, that there was no basis for the contention that there had to be a two-year time limit for any withdrawal and that a prudent and circumspect operator should not have inferred that the exemption would not be removed without such a time limit; and (3) on the evidence the exemption’s removal had been justified in the public interest and, notwithstanding its evident harm to the claimants’ private interests and right to property in the form of concluded contracts to supply companies, came within the appropriate margin of discretion.’

‘An 800-year-old dress code banning women from taking off their hats may finally be overturned later in Norfolk. But what other old-fashioned, or just plain strange, rules are in place around England?’

‘Alcohol duty fraud costs the treasury an estimated £1 billion per annum. HMRC has stated that
‘the wholesale sector is the major point where illicit alcohol is diverted by organised criminals into retail supply chains…this link in the supply chain is vulnerable because it is the only activity not required to be authorised by HMRC…Introducing a requirement for wholesalers to register with HMRC will address this and reduce opportunities for fraud.’’